The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Martin Wolf - Chief economist of the Financial Times.....
...
Socialising the full rental value of land would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. That is obviously impossible.

Not so, as the alternative -- leaving landowner privilege in place -- will also destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. It will also, unlike justice, ultimately destroy society.

The current financial system is built on debt, especially mortgage debt. We can destroy that system (which it very much needs) without imposing any significant hardship on anyone (rich, greedy, privileged parasites will of course lose most of their assets, but then, they deserve to). Just recover publicly created land value by taxation, eliminate the debt money system, and replace it with an independent Mint whose sole mandate is to print just enough money to keep commodity prices stable, and deliver it to the Treasury to be spent into circulation.

But socialising any gain from here on would be far less so.

It would be fairer and much more effective to recover the land value gains obtained since the land was last traded. Just exempt the rental value of each land parcel at the time of last purchase from taxation, and then phase out the exemption over a decade or two as the rising land rents resulting from explosive economic growth make it irrelevant. This would prevent anyone from losing any significant value or wealth that they actually earned and deserved.

This would eliminate the fever of land speculation. It would also allow a shift in the burden of taxation. Perhaps as important, with the prospects of effortless increases in wealth removed, the UK might re-examine its planning laws. There is panic about the dire consequences of such a liberalisation of restrictions for the countryside. It is worth noting, however, how little is needed: an increase of just three miles in the radius of London would raise the capital’s surface area by 50 per cent. Would this really be the end of England’s green and pleasant land?

More to the point, requiring landowners to repay what they are being given would stimulate them to use existing vacant and under-utilized urban sites more intensively, REDUCING the pressure to expand into greenfield areas.

I do not expect any government to dare to wean the English from their ruinous trust in land speculation as the route to wealth. But I can hope. It is bad enough that the result has been expensive houses and inefficient taxes. But it is surely far worse that such insane speculative fevers have ended up destabilising the entire global economy. Even if few know it, it is time for a change.

Well, everyone who has read this thread or the LVT thread knows it -- even if most of them refuse to know it.

 

[Steven Douglas]

...an independent Mint whose sole mandate is to print just enough money to keep commodity prices stable, and deliver it to the Treasury to be spent into circulation.

"Yeah, what Roy said. I want to
print and spend just enough to
keep commodity prices stable,
no more, no less. Honest Injun!"

And when that happy little nightmare happens, I hope they pick me as one of the lucky first recipients of that juicy new money that gets spent into circulation. Location, location, location!

Now, if I can just figure out a way to convince the Treasury that my hotdogs are tastier than my competitors'.

 

[Roy L]

"Yeah, what Roy said. I want to print and spend just enough to keep commodity prices stable, no more, no less. Honest Injun!"

Better than private banksters fabricating enough debt to force everyone but the banksters deeper and deeper into debt. You seem permanently unable to know the fact that independent agencies are just that: independent.

And when that happy little nightmare happens, I hope they pick me as one of the lucky first recipients of that juicy new money that gets spent into circulation. Location, location, location!

Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant? There would be no difference between the spending of the new money and spending of tax revenue. Only the source of the money would be different.

Now, if I can just figure out a way to convince the Treasury that my hotdogs are tastier than my competitors'.

Yes, well, good luck with that. Given the level of economic understanding you have displayed to date, you won't be persuading government to spend money on anything you produce any time soon.

 

[Roy L]

I'm not evil.

You want to profit by the uncompensated violation of others' rights. That is evil.

I simply reject the premises behind the claim that I owe "the community" anything as irrational (they are).

There is nothing irrational about being required to pay the community for what you take from the community. As a landowner, you just want to take from the community but not pay. Simple.

btw, I mean no disrespect because you are exactly correct about "intellectual property".

I am also exactly correct about land. And you know it.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Better than private banksters...

I'll leave it to you to rationalize what you think is the lesser of two evils, while I pass entirely on your false choice. I agree with our original Congress, which imposed a death penalty on anyone artificially fucking with the value of the money supply. Off with their worthless heads.

There would be no difference between the spending of the new money and spending of tax revenue. Only the source of the money would be different.

Bullshit. Even with the disingenuous attempt to narrow the argument to the differences in "spending", as if that actually said something.

The spending of taxed revenue is not the difficult part. The difficult part is that it requires actual taxation - an up front acknowledgement that real productivity is being siphoned for public interests. That provokes actual and specific reactions on the parts of those being directly taxed, and at the very least implies accountability on the parts of representatives who could be answerable to those taxed. With taxed revenues, the actual source of the money and the channels by which it makes its way into the economy, are not qualified. If it's hard specie, tied to one or more actual commodities, then the source can be both stable and non-distorting.

Revenues that are merely printed into existence out of thin air and spent into the economy is far easier - for government at least - as this invisible and indirect tax provides them a haven -- insulation from accountability (something that naturally has strong appeal to cowardly parasites and other counter/unproductive nasties of the world). In that case the source of the money is qualified (i.e., out of a vacuum), as is the source of its invisibly siphoned value (existing and future currency holders, the value of whose holdings are perpetually diluted). It is also 100% inflationary by design...even if we were actually actually poop-stupid enough to buy into the stable commodity prices "mandate".

 

[Roy L]

I'll leave it to you to rationalize what you think is the lesser of two evils, while I pass entirely on your false choice.

It's not the lesser of two evils, it's good rather than evil.

I agree with our original Congress, which imposed a death penalty on anyone artificially fucking with the value of the money supply. Off with their worthless heads.

<yawn> As you know, but must refuse to know because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil, the original Congress also purposed to finance the federal government entirely by a tax on the value of landed property.

Bullshit

Fact.

Even with the disingenuous attempt to narrow the argument to the differences in "spending", as if that actually said something.

Talk about disingenuous! I said the difference is NOT in spending, but in the source of the money.

The spending of taxed revenue is not the difficult part.

Depends what you mean by "difficult."

The difficult part is that it requires actual taxation - an up front acknowledgement that real productivity is being siphoned for public interests.

As you know, that's just another flat-out lie from you. LVT does NOT siphon productivity, AT ALL. It simply recovers the publicly created value that landowners are ALREADY siphoning from real productivity for their PRIVATE interests.

That provokes actual and specific reactions on the parts of those being directly taxed,

And in the case of LVT, they are beneficial actions that promote liberty, justice and prosperity. You just hate liberty and justice, and prefer to sacrifice your country's prosperity so that you can profit unjustly from the forcible removal of others' liberty without just compensation.

I.e., you prefer evil over good, and intend to serve evil by opposing good.

and at the very least implies accountability on the parts of representatives who could be answerable to those taxed.

That would only apply to those who are being taxed out of their rightful property, not to thieves who are being required to repay what they have been stealing.

With taxed revenues, the actual source of the money and the channels by which it makes its way into the economy, are not qualified. If it's hard specie, tied to one or more actual commodities, then the source can be both stable and non-distorting.

No, it can't.

Revenues that are merely printed into existence out of thin air and spent into the economy is far easier - for government at least - as this invisible and indirect tax

Stop lying. It's not a tax if it just maintains money's purchasing power, because no one loses anything they would rightfully have. Stop lying. Government EARNS the seigniorage of such revenues BY maintaining the value of money and fostering the economic growth that would otherwise make that money more valuable without the holders of that money having done anything to earn the increase in purchasing power.

provides them a haven -- insulation from accountability

Another lie. They are accountable to the people, and the people will notice if their money is not of stable value.

(something that naturally has strong appeal to cowardly parasites and other counter/unproductive nasties of the world).

The landowner is the most counterproductive, unproductive, vicious, greedy, evil, and cowardly of all nasty parasites.

In that case the source of the money is qualified (i.e., out of a vacuum), as is the source of its invisibly siphoned value (existing and future currency holders, the value of whose holdings are perpetually diluted).

No, it isn't. You are lying, Steven, LYING. You just want the holders of money (and especially debt instruments) to have the value of their holdings perpetually concentrated so that they can live as parasites permanently, taking from production while contributing nothing whatever to production.

Just like the landowner-parasites you also crawl on your belly to fawn over and serve.

It is also 100% inflationary by design...

<yawn> Lie. Blatantly and self-evidently.

even if we were actually actually poop-stupid enough to buy into the stable commodity prices "mandate".

There is exactly one person here who is actually poop-stupid, Stupin.

 

[Steven Douglas]

It's not the lesser of two evils, it's good rather than evil.

Yeah, if by good you mean flat-out demonic.

...the original Congress also purposed to finance the federal government entirely by a tax on the value of landed property.

Non-sequitur, as you shifted awkwardly from the subject of taxation via fiat money creation (deliberate currency debasement as a means of taxation) to tax on the value of land, which has ZERO to do with the death penalty imposed by Congress for specie debasement.

Talk about disingenuous! I said the difference is NOT in spending, but in the source of the money.

Read what I wrote again (this time really read it). I said that your point that there would be no difference in spending was irrelevant - that's what made it disingenuous, as it was nothing more than a deflection statement on your part. But there you go trying to make it relevant again by restating it. It's still just as irrelevant. Not to mention inaccurate. The easier it is to lay your hands on funding at will, the easier it is to spend it.

Greenbacks made all the difference in the world as augmented funding for war -- an ENORMOUS difference between taxation revenue spending and printing revenue spending, for reasons that should be obvious to even the most casually observing idiot. Really, a complete idiot could see that plainly, without any deep thoughts required. Come on, Roy, you're not that daft, are you?

LVT does NOT siphon productivity, AT ALL. It simply recovers the publicly created value that landowners are ALREADY siphoning from real productivity for their PRIVATE interests.

Who said ANYTHING at all about LVT? Earth to Roy...

Blah blah LVT beneficial...liberty, justice and prosperity, blah blah propaganda blah blah...you prefer evil over good, and intend to serve evil by opposing good.

Shhhhh....Shh..shush-shush-shut your mouth.

It's not a tax if it just maintains money's purchasing power, because no one loses anything they would rightfully have. Stop lying. Government EARNS the seigniorage of such revenues BY maintaining the value of money and fostering the economic growth that would otherwise make that money more valuable without the holders of that money having done anything to earn the increase in purchasing power.

What goofy, logically disjointed and completely inaccurate statements. IT DELIBERATELY ERODES its value, and screw the rationale of "purchasing power" used by all the dishonest ilk who see market manipulations and price or value targeting/fixing in any of its forms as a rationale for currency debauchery. Government "fostering economic growth"..."EARNS" seigniorage...worse than pathetic.

They are accountable to the people, and the people will notice if their money is not of stable value.

You really are all but completely disconnected from reality, aren't you? Even in the face of a currency that is not stable in value today, with all the finger pointing that happens when people do indeed notice that their money is "not of stable value", most of whom have no idea what money even is, let alone who is to blame for that loss of stability. But somehow noticing that money is not "of stable value" makes those who debauch the currency accountable. Not to mention it is a disgustingly presumptuous assumption that ANYTHING should be artificially "of stable value".

You just want the holders of money (and especially debt instruments) to have the value of their holdings perpetually concentrated so that they can live as parasites permanently, taking from production while contributing nothing whatever to production.

Debt instruments? I loathe the fact that debt instruments are even considered money, but most of all the fact that debt instruments do not compete fairly with privately accumulated capital. Where did you get the ridiculous notion that I cared a whit about debt instruments? I loathe the fact that savings are invisibly taxed through inflation that is based on artificial currency value manipulations of any kind. You're the one who wants the currency deliberately debauched/debased - just through a different, more direct, mechanism - the fact that there are no debt instruments involved in your little currency debauching fantasy scenario does not detract from that simple fact.

 

[EcoWarrier]

They don't find it difficult to understand. They understand very well that it proves their beliefs are false and evil, so they have to find a way not to understand it. This whole thread (not to mention the previous LVT thread) proves that conclusively.

I have read most of this thread, not all as some posts are just irrelevant snipes with some anti-LVT posts just plain rude and ignorant responding with silly cartoons displaying gross misunderstanding or conditioning. When beaten they go close to insults and refer to LVT posters as trolls as they have no argument.

What stands out is that the case put forward for LVT as the Single Tax is overwhelming with backup from leading economists and the rest. Some of those against have some strange views. Some are grossly self-centered, not wanting to pay their way in their communities and wanting to live off what others provide, which makes them parasites. They disguise this parasitical view in some sort of personal freedom notion. Some have been conditioned over time, and have told themselves lies and believe them, that their view is the right view despite all logic demolishing their view. They say black is white and white is black.

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times as clear as day states where the root cause of the Credit Crunch was, which is speculation in land and points out the devastating effects of speculation in land and its resources. Wolf also highlights those who have made money in land by doing sweet nothing. In his article in the FT, Wolf refers to Fred Harrison and Harrison's view, in video, ironically is on post No. 1 of this thread. Sir Sam Britten also of the FT has also expressed the same views as Marin Wolf and the same solution. All state that the cure for this financial evil for ever is LVT.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Martin Wolf - Chief economist of the Financial Times.....
...
Socialising the full rental value of land would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. That is obviously impossible.

Not so, as the alternative -- leaving landowner privilege in place -- will also destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. It will also, unlike justice, ultimately destroy society.

But socialising any gain from here on would be far less so.

It would be fairer and much more effective to recover the land value gains obtained since the land was last traded. Just exempt the rental value of each land parcel at the time of last purchase from taxation, and then phase out the exemption over a decade or two as the rising land rents resulting from explosive economic growth make it irrelevant. This would prevent anyone from losing any significant value or wealth that they actually earned and deserved.

Wolf is wrong. Socializing the full rental value of land would not would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. How could it?

I think what Martin Wolf is saying is start an LVT system from the point of implementation. Trying anything else will be politically difficult to drive through. Wolf has to get his ideas through and something perceived as radical may not be viewed too well. Say starting from 1st Jan 2013, you pay LVT on the land values. What is in the past is in the past.

Much land in the UK, US and Canada, etc, has not been traded for hundreds of years. About half of the land in the UK is not even on the land register, which is a fiddle to keep parasitic aristocratic land from prying eyes. Of course all land in a country must be on its land register.

 

[Roy L]

Wolf is wrong. Socializing the full rental value of land would not would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public. How could it?

Very simply: privatized rent is currently capitalized into land value. Remove the private appropriation of rent, and land value disappears. Real estate will lose about 2/3 of its value. Many mortgages will be underwater, and banks' loan portfolios will consequently all be trashed.

I think what Martin Wolf is saying is start an LVT system from the point of implementation. Trying anything else will be politically difficult to drive through.

Not sure what you mean by "anything else."

Wolf has to get his ideas through and something perceived as radical may not be viewed too well. Say starting from 1st Jan 2013, you pay LVT on the land values. What is in the past is in the past.

I don't see how that avoids the transition issues.

Much land in the UK, US and Canada, etc, has not been traded for hundreds of years.

Then it wouldn't get much of a purchase cost exemption.

About half of the land in the UK is not even on the land register, which is a fiddle to keep parasitic aristocratic land from prying eyes. Of course all land in a country must be on its land register.

Yes, that can be remedied easily now using computer and satellite mapping technologies.

 

[Roy L]

Some have been conditioned over time, and have told themselves lies and believe them, that their view is the right view despite all logic demolishing their view. They say black is white and white is black.

Bingo. The absurdities needed to enable the atrocities.

 

[Roy L]

Yeah, if by good you mean flat-out demonic.

ROTFL! Funny how such a "demonic" idea has improved people's lives everywhere it has ever been tried...

Non-sequitur, as you shifted awkwardly from the subject of taxation via fiat money creation (deliberate currency debasement as a means of taxation)

Maintaining the value of a currency is not debasement or taxation, stop lying.

to tax on the value of land, which has ZERO to do with the death penalty imposed by Congress for specie debasement.

<yawn> You sought to wrap yourself in the "first Congress" flag, but had no intention of being consistent about it. If you are going to claim you must be right because the first Congress was right, then LVT is also right because the first Congress was right.

Read what I wrote again (this time really read it).

Hmm... mmm-hmmm....

Nope. Still stupid, dishonest garbage.

I said that your point that there would be no difference in spending was irrelevant - that's what made it disingenuous, as it was nothing more than a deflection statement on your part.

?? No, you said,

Even with the disingenuous attempt to narrow the argument to the differences in "spending",

I made no such attempt, and stated that there WERE no differences in spending. You were simply lying about what I plainly wrote. Again.

But there you go trying to make it relevant again by restating it. It's still just as irrelevant. Not to mention inaccurate.

Stupid, dishonest garbage.

The easier it is to lay your hands on funding at will, the easier it is to spend it.

But as you know, I explicitly described a system that DOES NOT allow the spending authority to lay its hands on funding at will.

Greenbacks made all the difference in the world as augmented funding for war -- an ENORMOUS difference between taxation revenue spending and printing revenue spending, for reasons that should be obvious to even the most casually observing idiot.

Oh, really? How, exactly, would the spending have differed if the money had been raised by borrowing or taxation, rather than fiat money issuance?

Really, a complete idiot could see that plainly, without any deep thoughts required. Come on, Roy, you're not that daft, are you?

Sorry, Stevid, but stupid, dishonest intimidation tactics don't work on me. You should know that by now. I do not see how printing the greenbacks rather than borrowing or taxing changed how the money was going to be spent. So you will need to answer the above question.

I'm waiting.

Who said ANYTHING at all about LVT? Earth to Roy...

Hehe. "Earth" indeed...

You made a false generalization about "taxation." I simply identified the fact that your generalization does not apply to LVT.

And you might want to check the thread title....

Shhhhh....Shh..shush-shush-shut your mouth.

I will continue to identify the fact that your dishonest absurdities are intended to enable evil atrocities.

What goofy, logically disjointed and completely inaccurate statements. IT DELIBERATELY ERODES its value,

That's clearly just a bald lie. The proposed independent Mint's only mandate is to MAINTAIN the currency's value.

and screw the rationale of "purchasing power" used by all the dishonest ilk who see market manipulations and price or value targeting/fixing in any of its forms as a rationale for currency debauchery. Government "fostering economic growth"..."EARNS" seigniorage...worse than pathetic.

It is the literal truth. You have no facts, no logic, no arguments to offer, so you bloviate. Simple.

You really are all but completely disconnected from reality, aren't you? Even in the face of a currency that is not stable in value today, with all the finger pointing that happens when people do indeed notice that their money is "not of stable value", most of whom have no idea what money even is, let alone who is to blame for that loss of stability.

EXACTLY! If the Mint is solely responsible for the supply and value of money, the Mint is to blame.

But somehow noticing that money is not "of stable value" makes those who debauch the currency accountable.

It obviously doesn't under the CURRENT system, because the current system was deliberately set up to be UNaccountable -- and incomprehensible to ordinary people.

Not to mention it is a disgustingly presumptuous assumption that ANYTHING should be artificially "of stable value".

Wrong AGAIN. One of the functions of money is to be a measure and standard of value. To satisfy that function, its value has to be stable.

Debt instruments? I loathe the fact that debt instruments are even considered money, but most of all the fact that debt instruments do not compete fairly with privately accumulated capital. Where did you get the ridiculous notion that I cared a whit about debt instruments? I loathe the fact that savings are invisibly taxed through inflation that is based on artificial currency value manipulations of any kind.

But if the currency deflates, as it would under your preferred system, the holders of debt instruments get a windfall. It is then debtors who are being "invisibly taxed" through deflation -- except that private creditors get the benefit for doing nothing, not the government to defray its spending on keeping the currency stable.

You're the one who wants the currency deliberately debauched/debased - just through a different, more direct, mechanism - the fact that there are no debt instruments involved in your little currency debauching fantasy scenario does not detract from that simple fact.

Please explain how maintaining stable value of a currency "debauches" it.

Take your time.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What stands out is that the case put forward for LVT as the Single Tax is overwhelming with backup from leading economists and the rest.

Appeal to authority.

Some of those against have some strange views. Some are grossly self-centered, not wanting to pay their way in their communities and wanting to live off what others provide, which makes them parasites. They disguise this parasitical view in some sort of personal freedom notion. Some have been conditioned over time, and have told themselves lies and believe them, that their view is the right view despite all logic demolishing their view. They say black is white and white is black.

Subjective opinions which don't advance your argument.

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times as clear as day states where the root cause of the Credit Crunch was, which is speculation in land and points out the devastating effects of speculation in land and its resources. Wolf also highlights those who have made money in land by doing sweet nothing. In his article in the FT, Wolf refers to Fred Harrison and Harrison's view, in video, ironically is on post No. 1 of this thread. Sir Sam Britten also of the FT has also expressed the same views as Marin Wolf and the same solution. All state that the cure for this financial evil for ever is LVT.

Another appeal to authority followed by subjective opinion.

Though the LVT is the least evil tax (as I pointed out many pages ago), this doesn't make it "good". I know you've got various examples from around the world, but the long tradition of fascism in this country suggests strongly that the elites will wriggle their way out of it and use their bought-off politicians to more than make up for what could be extracted via an LVT. You're going to have to make a better case that individuals owe something to "the community" for merely existing and enjoying increased overall wealth when property values go up. The Geoist/libertarian argument against "intellectual property" is much stronger.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Maintaining the value of a currency is not debasement or taxation, stop lying.

Artificially "maintaining the value" of anything involves debasement. When you say "maintain the value" of the currency, what you really mean is "prevent the currency from gaining in value relative to commodities". Through its dilution, debasement, debauchery -- artificial erosion of its scarcity -- a hidden tax on currency holdings - AKA SAVINGS, AKA Privately Accumulated Capital.

You sought to wrap yourself in the "first Congress" flag, but had no intention of being consistent about it. If you are going to claim you must be right because the first Congress was right, then LVT is also right because the first Congress was right.

Nice grotesque fallacy of composition you have going there, Roy. Citing one statement or opinion from one source does not equate to acceptance of all opinions from that same source.

But as you know, I explicitly described a system that DOES NOT allow the spending authority to lay its hands on funding at will.

Oh really? So Treasury would not be able to use the Mint to simply print money at will? Did you think your little commodity value-manipulating proviso/mandate was some kind of check and balance against that? We have actual Constitutional provisos that are very clear mandates -- which are NOT FOLLOWED EVEN NOW.

How, exactly, would the spending have differed if the money had been raised by borrowing or taxation, rather than fiat money issuance?

Firstly, if you weren't so disingenuous as to conflate taxation with borrowing, you could ask yourself what the difference in spending HAS BEEN between those two. Fiat money issuance is similar to deficit spending, except that it's a one-way street, as no debt instruments are issued, and no mechanism is in place for deflation. The currency is simply inflated. Perpetually.

I do not see how printing the greenbacks rather than borrowing or taxing changed how the money was going to be spent.

That's because you engaged in dishonest, slippery word-shifting, Roy. It is not so much "how the money was going to be spent", but rather how much could be spent -- which in turn affected how the money was spent (on WAR). Lincoln was limited by how much he could raise and spend through direct taxation. That limit was enlarged by Greenbacks, as it gave Lincoln a way to borrow and spend value from the currency itself in the aggregate. And you know that, Roy, so you do see.

You made a false generalization about "taxation." I simply identified the fact that your generalization does not apply to LVT.

Who gives a crap how anything applied to your irrelevant, off-point non-sequitur? This part of the thread, which you engaged in, had absolutely nothing to do with LVT.

That's clearly just a bald lie. The proposed independent Mint's only mandate is to MAINTAIN the currency's value.

Hmm...would that be a Super-Duper Mandate, like, say, a Constitutional Amendment? Or would it be just a piece of legislation? Because as long as we're in mandate worshiping mode as a magic panacea, how about mandates like "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."? How did that and other "proposed mandates" work out for us?

You really do function in a vacuum, Roy. You think "so let it be written, so let it be done" is all there is to it. And if the real world was all contained within Roy L.'s narcissistic mind, and Roy L. had sole despotic dominion that might be true.

Your "proposed mandate" is no check or balance Roy.

EXACTLY! If the Mint is solely responsible for the supply and value of money, the Mint is to blame.

Ah, well, as long as we have a nebulous collectivized entity to blame... And who controls the Mint? Anything political involved there, or would it be a magic insulated oracle like the "independent" Fed?

...the current system was deliberately set up to be UNaccountable -- and incomprehensible to ordinary people.

Well, if you're in charge of drafting anything, I would expect that to continue...on crack.

One of the functions of money is to be a measure and standard of value. To satisfy that function, its value has to be stable.

WRONG. In the absolute. There is no such thing as a "standard of value" (ALL economic value is transient), and all "measure of value" originates with individuals.

But if the currency deflates, as it would under your preferred system, the holders of debt instruments get a windfall. It is then debtors who are being "invisibly taxed" through deflation -- except that private creditors get the benefit for doing nothing, not the government to defray its spending on keeping the currency stable.

The value of money (hard specie, NOT debt instruments), like any other commodity, becomes more valuable with deflation of that commodity, less valuable with inflation of that same commodity. It's not complicated, but only a function of its scarcity relative to other commodities. There is absolutely nothing special about money in that respect, and most certainly not a rationale that one commodity should be artificially inflated or deflated in an attempt to manipulate, control or distort an entire market.

In a normal free market with a sound currency (one that is not artificially manipulated), both inflation and deflation are healthy and normal - like inhaling and exhaling. Neither inflation nor deflation are perpetual conditions - a Keynesian-on-crack-rotted brain is required to believe otherwise.

 

[Lishy]

I know nothing of economics, so I better shut up. But from my impressions, I do support the Land Value Tax as a single tax because it allows us to choose our tax while still funding the government. It's a LOT more free than the income tax, in my opinion.

 

[Roy L]

Appeal to authority.

I call bull$#!+! The dishonesty of LVT opponents is so deep, so thorough, so relentless, that they accuse LVT advocates of being crackpots, claiming, "No economist agrees with your crackpot idea." Then when LVT advocates identify the Nobel laureates in economics who DO agree with our idea, and QUOTE THEIR ARGUMENTS, this is dismissed as an "appeal to authority."

Such dishonesty is disgraceful, despicable, and disgusting.

You need to learn what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is. It is not when you cite arguments by known experts. It is not even when you identify the fact that known experts have made arguments similar to yours. It is only when you claim that an authority is SUFFICIENT to justify your conclusion WITHOUT any supporting argument. And I have never seen an LVT advocate do that.

Subjective opinions which don't advance your argument.

Wrong. Eco simply identified the absurdity and dishonesty that are the invariable characteristics of all opposition to LVT.

Another appeal to authority followed by subjective opinion.

LOL! Citing credible sources is not an appeal to authority fallacy, sorry. And you're one to complain about others stating "subjective opinions":

Though the LVT is the least evil tax (as I pointed out many pages ago), this doesn't make it "good".

Subjective opinion.

I know you've got various examples from around the world, but the long tradition of fascism in this country suggests strongly that the elites will wriggle their way out of it and use their bought-off politicians to more than make up for what could be extracted via an LVT.

Subjective opinion. OTC: the elite's vicious, relentless, monomaniacal campaign to stop LVT -- which included introducing income tax and union monopoly privileges to co-opt socialists and organized labor into betraying the Single Tax movement -- strongly suggests that they know very well they can't wriggle out of it, and will therefore do anything whatever -- including destroy the economy and the country -- in order to stop it.

You're going to have to make a better case that individuals owe something to "the community" for merely existing and enjoying increased overall wealth when property values go up.

Now you are just -- inevitably -- lying. It is their right to liberty -- which LVT with a universal individual exemption restores -- that people have for "merely existing," not LVT liabilities. You know this. And you only owe something to the community of those whose rights you violate when you take more than your share of the opportunities nature provided, and thus forcibly deprive others of their liberty to access those opportunities. It is for FORCIBLY VIOLATING OTHERS' RIGHTS that you owe the community just compensation, not for "merely existing" or "enjoying increased overall wealth when property [actually land, as you know very well] values go up."

STOP LYING about what we have plainly said.

The Geoist/libertarian argument against "intellectual property" is much stronger.

If you understand how intellectual property violates the right to liberty, you also understand how property in land violates the right to liberty. The difference lies only in your refusal to know the latter fact.

 

[Roy L]

I know nothing of economics, so I better shut up.

Not knowing anything is a good reason to ask questions, not to shut up.

But from my impressions, I do support the Land Value Tax as a single tax because it allows us to choose our tax while still funding the government. It's a LOT more free than the income tax, in my opinion.

Your opinion is objectively correct.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Though the LVT is the least evil tax (as I pointed out many pages ago), this doesn't make it "good".

Subjective opinion.

Nah, remember the Roy L. Pretzel Logic Rule on Subjective vs. Objective? As soon as you quoted his opinion it became objective. Why, I'll even help and second his opinion, that way there's more than one. There, now there are two votes, which makes the two opinions objective. Dib hocks dice, tick a locket, no take backs.

Interesting fantasy land you live in, Roy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You really didn't need to attack me, Roy. I was simply pointing out weaknesses in your argument. Below is a good explanation of the appeal to authority fallacy:

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[SUP][1][/SUP]
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.a says p about S.Therefore, p is correct.The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[SUP][2][/SUP]
X holds that A is trueX is a legitimate expert on the subject.The consensus of experts agrees with X.Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.[h=3][edit]Fallacious appeals to authority[/h]Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[SUP][3][/SUP] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[SUP][2][/SUP] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5]

Now you see why I pointed out that you committed this fallacy. Quoting a source to buttress your argument, however, is not fallacious-and is not what you did.


[/SUP]

Now you are just -- inevitably -- lying. It is their right to liberty -- which LVT with a universal individual exemption restores -- that people have for "merely existing," not LVT liabilities. You know this. And you only owe something to the community of those whose rights you violate when you take more than your share of the opportunities nature provided, and thus forcibly deprive others of their liberty to access those opportunities. It is for FORCIBLY VIOLATING OTHERS' RIGHTS that you owe the community just compensation, not for "merely existing" or "enjoying increased overall wealth when property [actually land, as you know very well] values go up."

STOP LYING about what we have plainly said.

"Fair share" is subjective. My idea of "fair" may be entirely different from yours. "Just compensation" is also subjective. Your arguments are so full of these vagueries and subjective terms that they are left full of holes in the end. No one will know, even if they agree with you, exactly how to put what you describe into practice because they will have to either keep asking you or make it up as they go along.

I didn't lie about what you said. You simply left it up to my interpretation because of the ambiguous, subjective nature of it. I hope you'll continue to refine and clarify your arguments so these discussions will be more productive. We may even find more common ground if you do that.

 

[Roy L]

Artificially "maintaining the value" of anything involves debasement.

No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you.

When you say "maintain the value" of the currency, what you really mean is "prevent the currency from gaining in value relative to commodities".

No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you. What I really mean is "prevent the currency from gaining OR LOSING value relative to commodities."

Through its dilution, debasement, debauchery -- artificial erosion of its scarcity -- a hidden tax on currency holdings - AKA SAVINGS, AKA Privately Accumulated Capital.

No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you. Fiat money's supply -- scarcity or abundance -- and its value are ALREADY INHERENTLY artificial, so it is a lie to claim printing more of it is any more "artificial" than printing less, or prosecuting counterfeiters. Your claim that maintaining money's value at a stable level constitutes a "hidden tax on currency holdings" is self-evidently idiotic and dishonest, as the currency holder loses nothing.

Furthermore, fiat currency holdings ARE NOT "Privately Accumulated Capital." They are hoarded purchasing power, that's all. CAPITAL is a product of labor that aids production. Fiat money is a product of government that aids exchange.

Nice grotesque fallacy of composition you have going there, Roy.

No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you. Identifying your dishonesty and logical inconsistency is not a fallacy of composition (which you really need to look up, along with everything else about logic).

Citing one statement or opinion from one source does not equate to acceptance of all opinions from that same source.

It does when you are citing that source as the authority for your statement.

Oh really? So Treasury would not be able to use the Mint to simply print money at will?

Correct. Much less than it is able at present to use the Fed for that purpose.

Did you think your little commodity value-manipulating proviso/mandate was some kind of check and balance against that?

I am willing to know the fact that it is, yes.

We have actual Constitutional provisos that are very clear mandates -- which are NOT FOLLOWED EVEN NOW.

And in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," that probably constitutes an argument. But in reality, it doesn't, because the same "argument" can be made equally on all sides of the issue. If you claim everything in the Constitution will simply be ignored, on what basis could you advocate constitutional constraints on money issuance?

Firstly, if you weren't so disingenuous as to conflate taxation with borrowing,

That's nothing but another stupid lie from you. I did no such thing, so stop lying about what I have plainly written.

you could ask yourself what the difference in spending HAS BEEN between those two.

I don't have to, as I am willing to know facts. There are many jurisdictions that CAN'T borrow, and their spending has not been that different from the spending of jurisdictions that can.

Fiat money issuance is similar to deficit spending, except that it's a one-way street, as no debt instruments are issued, and no mechanism is in place for deflation. The currency is simply inflated. Perpetually.

No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you. There are two deflation mechanisms in place: the natural attrition of the currency (bills wear out, or are lost in fires, accidentally thrown away, etc.) and growth of economic exchange.

That's because you engaged in dishonest, slippery word-shifting, Roy.

No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you.

It is not so much "how the money was going to be spent", but rather how much could be spent -- which in turn affected how the money was spent (on WAR).

No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you. It is indisputable that the greenbacks were printed as an alternative to additional borrowing -- and as a way to keep interest rates on government debt down. The war required more money, and it was not going to be abandoned for lack of funds.

Lincoln was limited by how much he could raise and spend through direct taxation.

Not really, as he could have apportioned any direct tax by population.

That limit was enlarged by Greenbacks, as it gave Lincoln a way to borrow and spend value from the currency itself in the aggregate.

Gibberish.

And you know that, Roy, so you do see.

No, I know it's gibberish.

Who gives a crap how anything applied to your irrelevant, off-point non-sequitur?

It wasn't irrelevant, off-point or a non sequitur. You simply made a false generalization, and I schooled you.

This part of the thread, which you engaged in, had absolutely nothing to do with LVT.

Wrong again. You made a general claim about taxes. That claim was false wrt LVT. I schooled you.

Hmm...would that be a Super-Duper Mandate, like, say, a Constitutional Amendment? Or would it be just a piece of legislation?

Whatever works.

Because as long as we're in mandate worshiping mode as a magic panacea, how about mandates like "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."? How did that and other "proposed mandates" work out for us?

I don't recall any state having done that, so it seems to have worked pretty well.

You really do function in a vacuum, Roy. You think "so let it be written, so let it be done" is all there is to it.

You're either discussing the proposal or you're trying to change the subject. You are trying to change the subject. Simple.

And if the real world was all contained within Roy L.'s narcissistic mind, and Roy L. had sole despotic dominion that might be true.

You have no facts or logic to offer, so you have to change the subject. Simple. "What you propose wouldn't be implemented, a different system would be implemented instead," is not an argument against a proposed system unless you can show how the proposal is uniquely susceptible to such corruption, amendment or replacement -- and you can't. Your "argument" is nothing but an all-purpose howl that applies equally to all proposals -- and is therefore not only not an argument against any of them, but is monumentally uninteresting.

Your "proposed mandate" is no check or balance Roy.

No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you.

Ah, well, as long as we have a nebulous collectivized entity to blame...

There's nothing nebulous or collectivized about it, stop lying.

And who controls the Mint?

Its operation could be administered by an appointed or elected official, but in any case it would operate with complete transparency, according to its mandate. If it was printing too much (or too little) money, that fact would immediately be known to both the staff and the public.

Anything political involved there, or would it be a magic insulated oracle like the "independent" Fed?

As (unlike the Fed) its printing operations would be completely open, anyone could check to see that it was hewing to its mandated function.

Well, if you're in charge of drafting anything, I would expect that to continue...on crack.

Stupid garbage unrelated to anything.

WRONG. In the absolute.

Nope. I am correct. By definition. Which means absolutely and indisputably.

There is no such thing as a "standard of value" (ALL economic value is transient),

Objectively false. Many people have standards of value even aside from money: the price of gold, of oil, of labor, etc.

and all "measure of value" originates with individuals.

People are individuals, and nothing in economics happens without people. So what?

The value of money (hard specie, NOT debt instruments), like any other commodity, becomes more valuable with deflation of that commodity, less valuable with inflation of that same commodity. It's not complicated, but only a function of its scarcity relative to other commodities. There is absolutely nothing special about money in that respect, and most certainly not a rationale that one commodity should be artificially inflated or deflated in an attempt to manipulate, control or distort an entire market.

Fiat money is not a commodity, and neither is debt money, so your observation is irrelevant.

In a normal free market with a sound currency (one that is not artificially manipulated), both inflation and deflation are healthy and normal - like inhaling and exhaling. Neither inflation nor deflation are perpetual conditions - a Keynesian-on-crack-rotted brain is required to believe otherwise.

Garbage. What happens to the value of commodity money over time depends on what the commodity is, and changes in conditions for its production. See "cowrie shell money."